Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 3/6/2012 7:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:07 pm, > wrote:
>> On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, > wrote:
>>>> On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>>
>>>>> He is incorrect.

>>
>>>> I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>> deny is George's baseless claim that all the food I eat is /contaminated/
>>>> with it.

>>
>>> Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
>>> long as you acknowledge that that's fine.

>>
>> It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
>> they /have/ to die. I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
>> about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
>> small part of it going without killing animals to produce vegetables
>> and fruits all year round. If they can do it so can others. I'm not
>> interested in keeping it going. I just want to get rid of it.

>
> It's not very realistic to think that food that you buy at the
> supermarket would have been produced without causing suffering and
> death.


And of course, the majority of the food he eats was commercially produced.
  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On Mar 6, 9:42*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 6:07 AM, Glen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:
> >> On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, > wrote:
> >>> On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > wrote:
> >>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
> >>>>> *any*
> >>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>
> >>>> He is incorrect.

>
> >>> I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
> >>> deny is George's baseless claim that all the food I eat is
> >>> /contaminated/
> >>> with it.

>
> >> Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
> >> long as you acknowledge that that's fine.

>
> > It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
> > they /have/ to die.

>
> They *do* die, and you're doing nothing to prevent it. *You just keep
> trying to cling to the fiction that because you're not the hands-on
> killer, you don't have any moral responsibility for the deaths. *That
> position is false - you *do* have moral responsibility.
>
> > I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
> > about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
> > small part of it going without killing animals

>
> Bullshit. *They kill animals.
>
> > to produce vegetables and fruits all year round.

>
> *NOT* enough for all of you to live on year round. *It isn't even the
> majority of what you eat.
>
> Your moral pedestal is destroyed. *You don't cause zero deaths, you
> don't cause the lowest possible number of deaths, and you don't cause
> fewer than *all* omnivores. *You have nothing left.



Goo, I have been asking for several years for photographic proof of
the collateral deaths that you allege. When can I expect you to supply
it?
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, Glen > wrote:

>On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:


>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

>
>No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>_________________________________________________ _____
>Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>to his own method. From Wiki;
>
>[Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>
> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>
>The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>
>Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>_________________________________________________ ____


Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it, and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur, as we can see by the above post I made
last year.

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless. They don't
even believe their own bullshit. You'll never get an honest
discussion here. You'll never get an honest answer from them.

Take Dutch, for example. When he first came here he claimed to
be a vegetarian and an advocate for animal rights. Like you he
used to believe;

"There is a whole different mindset between tolerating
collateral death in your life and seeking out direct
sacrifice for your subsistence."
Dutch Aug 26 2000 http://tinyurl.com/7dduf

and

"The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it
enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that
their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis
attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n
diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually
unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility.
It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the
v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
Dutch Dec 13 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
production.

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
better that they live that life than that they not live at
all"
Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

"Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
animal-rights agenda.
Rupert 12 May 2007 http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp

He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
agenda.

George also believes that;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
general if everyone were vegetarian."
4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug

and

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja

He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.

"I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh

He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
it.

"... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
treated from the time they're born all the way to the
point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true - the
welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
horrifically neglected."
28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm

So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,
intentionally misrepresented to avoid tackling your real
position, heckled for having the guts to live by your
convictions and called a liar at every opportunity. If
you want to discuss these issues with someone who's
been on these animal-related groups for a long time and
knows what he's talking about, contact me through my new
email address (check headers). If there's anything I can't
address or fail to address to your satisfaction I will gladly
introduce you to others who will only be too glad to talk to
you.
  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"Derek" > wrote
> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.


That's bad advice.

> Their only objective
> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.


Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan diet can
be healthy, and for the most part causes a relatively low environmental
impact. Where their efforts fail, massively and laughably, is in convincing
any well-informed person that following a vegan lifestyle is a moral
imperative, or that is critical for good health. Vegans typically overshoot
badly. Vegan efforts are also worthless in a lot of small ways, such as in
the silly aversion to micrograms of animal parts in sauces.

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>
>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:

>
>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

>>
>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>> __________________________________________________ ____
>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>
>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>
>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>
>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>
>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>> __________________________________________________ ___

>
> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,


Vegetables generally have that history.


> and there's
> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
> for the deaths that may occur,


Absolutely wrong, Derek. This idea of shared or vicarious moral
responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
established beyond rational dispute. It's the motivation behind
boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
"cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.


> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.


The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal. The
objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled. "vegans" are not
behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.


> [...]
>
> George also believes that;
>
> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
> livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
> general if everyone were vegetarian."
> 4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug


That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
omnivorous diets.


>
> and
>
> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> feed for the animals you eat.
>
> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja


Same again.

However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
"lifestyle" is "cruelty free." Eventually he'll have to abandon that
claim, as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
abandon it, anyway - and then he'll have to play the counting game, and
then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
"rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".


> He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
> inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.
>
> "I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
> aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh


Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.


>
> He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
> an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
> it.
>
> "... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
> actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
> enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
> animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
> about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
> slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
> they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
> treated from the time they're born all the way to the
> point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true - the
> welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
> horrifically neglected."
> 28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm


That's high-volume commercial meat packing plants as they currently
operate. I think kosher and halal slaughterhouses don't operate that
way, which is a big part of why that meat is much more expensive.


> So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
> extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,


Not by me, he won't.


> intentionally misrepresented to avoid tackling your real
> position, heckled for having the guts to live by your
> convictions and called a liar at every opportunity. If
> you want to discuss these issues with someone who's
> been on these animal-related groups for a long time and
> knows what he's talking about, contact me through my new
> email address (check headers). If there's anything I can't
> address or fail to address to your satisfaction I will gladly
> introduce you to others who will only be too glad to talk to
> you.




  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:

>>
>>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>>>
>>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>>> __________________________________________________ ____
>>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>>
>>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>>
>>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>>
>>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>>
>>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>>> __________________________________________________ ___

>>
>> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
>> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,

>
>Vegetables generally have that history.


No, I don't believe that.

>> and there's
>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>> for the deaths that may occur,

>
>Absolutely wrong, Derek.


I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
rule of English law that dictates,

"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
under the contract...."

>This idea of shared or vicarious moral
>responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
>established beyond rational dispute.


Yes, and it goes directly against your view.

>It's the motivation behind
>boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
>practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
>is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
>exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
>a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
>for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
>"cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.
>
>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

>
>The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal.


And you've failed to do that.

>The
>objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled.


Obviously not, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You've managed to convince the weak-willed participants
who didn't understand their position here over the years, but
you've never been able to convince the more able vegans who
genuinely believe animals hold inalienable rights against us
not to be reduced to that of a mere utility for our own ends.

>"vegans" are not
>behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.


I disagree.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> George also believes that;
>>
>> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
>> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
>> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
>> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
>> livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
>> general if everyone were vegetarian."
>> 4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug

>
>That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
>omnivorous diets.


No, the context "ALWAYS" stands on its own here.

>> and
>>
>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
>> feed for the animals you eat.
>>
>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
>> 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja

>
>Same again.


Yep.

>However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
>counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
>"lifestyle" is "cruelty free."


And it is on his part. The cruelty is not his and doesn't come
from him. The callous food producer is responsible for the
cruelty, and it stays with him.

>Eventually he'll have to abandon that claim,


No, I don't think he will, and I don't think he needs to.

>as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
>abandon it, anyway


Rupert thinks he knows what he's talking about, but we both
know he doesn't really have a clue. That's why he flip flops
from deontology to utilitarianism all the time. It's why he
switched from being an abolitionist advocating rights for
animals to a 'new welfarist' position promoting farmed
livestock, openly reinforcing the idea that killing animals
for food and medical research is perfectly acceptable.

>- and then he'll have to play the counting game,


I'm not sure he'll do that, either. Further up this thread he
wrote, "Numbers are irrelevant."

>and
>then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
>"rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
>reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".
>
>
>> He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
>> inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.
>>
>> "I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh

>
>Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
>death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
>at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.


But, according to you, should anyone with a strong moral sense
on this issue try to avoid causing the deaths of farmed animals
by forswearing meat, they're smug, sanctimonious hypocrites
without a coherent stopping rule because non-farmed animals
are killed during crop production. I don't follow that connection.
Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
because you wear a leather watch strap, for example? And
would your failure to foreswear leather have any bearing on
the matter anyway?

>> He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
>> an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
>> it.
>>
>> "... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
>> actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
>> enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
>> animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
>> about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
>> slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
>> they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
>> treated from the time they're born all the way to the
>> point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true - the
>> welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
>> horrifically neglected."
>> 28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm

>
>That's high-volume commercial meat packing plants as they currently
>operate. I think kosher and halal slaughterhouses don't operate that
>way, which is a big part of why that meat is much more expensive.
>
>
>> So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
>> extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,

>
>Not by me, he won't.
>
>
>> intentionally misrepresented to avoid tackling your real
>> position, heckled for having the guts to live by your
>> convictions and called a liar at every opportunity. If
>> you want to discuss these issues with someone who's
>> been on these animal-related groups for a long time and
>> knows what he's talking about, contact me through my new
>> email address (check headers). If there's anything I can't
>> address or fail to address to your satisfaction I will gladly
>> introduce you to others who will only be too glad to talk to
>> you.

  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Derek" > wrote
>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.

>
>That's bad advice.
>
>> Their only objective
>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

>
>Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan diet can
>be healthy,


You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
convincing.
  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George > wrote:
>
>> On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>>>>
>>>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>>>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>>>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>>>> __________________________________________________ ____
>>>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>>>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>>>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>>>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>>>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>>>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>>>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>>>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>>>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>>>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>>>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>>>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>>>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>>>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>>>
>>>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>>>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>>>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>>>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>>>
>>>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>>>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>>>
>>>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>>>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>>>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>>>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>>>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>>>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>>>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>>>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>>>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>>>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>>>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>>>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>>>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>>>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>>>
>>>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>>>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>>>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>>>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>>>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>>>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>>>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>>>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>>>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>>>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>>>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>>>> __________________________________________________ ___
>>>
>>> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
>>> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,

>>
>> Vegetables generally have that history.

>
> No, I don't believe that.
>
>>> and there's
>>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>>> for the deaths that may occur,

>>
>> Absolutely wrong, Derek.

>
> I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
> rule of English law that dictates,
>
> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
> under the contract...."


As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
*legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility. It also
looks at an incident in isolation, but the relationship of food
consumers buying produce whose production they *know* causes animals to
suffer and die is ongoing.



>> This idea of shared or vicarious moral
>> responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
>> established beyond rational dispute.

>
> Yes, and it goes directly against your view.


No, it doesn't.

>
>> It's the motivation behind
>> boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
>> practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
>> is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
>> exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
>> a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
>> for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
>> "cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.
>>
>>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
>>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

>>
>> The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal.

>
> And you've failed to do that.


Ha ha ha! No, I haven't - I dynamited the pedestal.


>> The objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled.

>
> Obviously not, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.


Obviously it is, because you're using the same failed arguments.


> You've managed to convince the weak-willed participants
> who didn't understand their position here over the years, but
> you've never been able to convince the more able vegans who
> genuinely believe animals hold inalienable rights against us
> not to be reduced to that of a mere utility for our own ends.
>
>> "vegans" are not
>> behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.

>
> I disagree.


Irrelevant. Most people convicted of crimes continue to insist they're
"innocent", as well, but the convictions typically stand.


>>> [...]
>>>
>>> George also believes that;
>>>
>>> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
>>> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
>>> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
>>> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
>>> livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
>>> general if everyone were vegetarian."
>>> 4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug

>>
>> That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
>> omnivorous diets.

>
> No, the context "ALWAYS" stands on its own here.


Nope.


>
>>> and
>>>
>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
>>> feed for the animals you eat.
>>>
>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
>>> 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja

>>
>> Same again.

>
> Yep.


Yep.


>
>> However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
>> counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
>> "lifestyle" is "cruelty free."

>
> And it is on his part.


It is not. He is in a voluntary, unnecessary, ongoing relationship with
killers. If he and *everyone* else stopped buying from animal-killing
producers, then animal-killing producers would either have to change
their methods or go out of business.

His "lifestyle" is not "cruelty free" - his pursuit of it leads to
animal death.



> The cruelty is not his and doesn't come
> from him.


<yawn> Same as meat eaters.

He doesn't commit the so-called cruelty, but he knows of it and rewards
the farmer for it by continuing to buy from him.


>> Eventually he'll have to abandon that claim,

>
> No, I don't think he will, and I don't think he needs to.


He does need to, and if engages with Rupert much longer, he will.


>
>> as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
>> abandon it, anyway

>
> Rupert thinks he knows what he's talking about, but we both
> know he doesn't really have a clue.


He does have a complete clue regarding the connection between vegetable
farming and animal death.


> That's why he flip flops
> from deontology to utilitarianism all the time.


Yes, that's the "vegan shuffle" that started the thread.


> It's why he
> switched from being an abolitionist advocating rights for
> animals to a 'new welfarist' position promoting farmed
> livestock, openly reinforcing the idea that killing animals
> for food and medical research is perfectly acceptable.
>
>> - and then he'll have to play the counting game,

>
> I'm not sure he'll do that, either. Further up this thread he
> wrote, "Numbers are irrelevant."


So, he won't have any basis for claiming virtue at all, then! Not only
won't he be on a pedestal, he'll be in a hole.


>> and
>> then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
>> "rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
>> reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".
>>
>>
>>> He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
>>> inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.
>>>
>>> "I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
>>> aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
>>> 5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh

>>
>> Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
>> death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
>> at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.

>
> But, according to you, should anyone with a strong moral sense
> on this issue try to avoid causing the deaths of farmed animals
> by forswearing meat, they're smug, sanctimonious hypocrites
> without a coherent stopping rule because non-farmed animals
> are killed during crop production.


They're only smug sanctimonious hypocrites if they claim to be living a
"cruelty free 'lifestyle'", or if they claim to be minimizing when
they've never measured.


> I don't follow that connection.


Sure you do, if by "follow" you mean comprehend.


> Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
> fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
> sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
> criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
> because you wear a leather watch strap, for example?


What's the relationship between dog fighting and consumption of cattle
products?
  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:

>>
>> >> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
>> >> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>> >> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.

>>
>> >I never said anything about rice.

>>
>> * * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
>> the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
>> produce none.
>>
>> >But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
>> >calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

>>
>> * * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
>> difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
>> more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!
>>
>> >> *Now
>> >> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>> >> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>> >> CDs than the beef.

>>
>> >No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>> >evidence one way or the other.

>>
>> * * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
>> far along with it, doctor?
>>

>
>If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
>serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
>death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
>should stop making that claim.


You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
sometimes involves less. For you to finally confess that you're aware of that
one fact would be a huge step for you but you still have not taken it, much less
have you gotten to the position of being able to determine in which cases soy
produces more and in which cases beef does. Notice that this is yet another
distinction that you not only are unable to make, but you don't even want to
accept that the situations which create the distinctions exist, even though it's
obvious that they do.

When you go look into grass raised dairy while at the same time getting to
see some first hand examples of dairy cows on a farm, while you think about the
value of life to them also think about the fact that they contribute to less
deaths than soy, and WAY fewer deaths than rice. That *could* be a big learning
day for you, and it could lead to many many more if you find a place where you
can regularly get some grass raised dairy, and enjoy seeing cows enjoying lives
of positive value (most days, hopefully :-), and maybe you could finally learn
what that means too.
.. . .
>> * * Go inquire from some cattle farmers in the area. If they don't have any to
>> sell you, or know anyone who does, they could still help you move in the
>> direction of finding someone who does know. While you're around the cattle see
>> if the farmer will let you observe them a little bit, and if so see if you can
>> appreciate that some or all of them appear to have lives of positive value, or
>> if you see some you feel do and some you feel don't maybe then you could learn
>> to appreciate the distinction. That is if you want to see it first hand as you
>> SHOULD! If there are any grass raised dairys in the area you would almost
>> certainly do better to begin with that, and it's better than beef anyway
>> ethically. So a great opportunity for you is to drop by a dairy farm probably in
>> the evening around 4 or 5 or in the morning when there are people around
>> milking, and ask them if any dairies in the area are grass raised. Also if there
>> is some sort of agricultural department in your area or someplace not too far
>> away you should call them and they might be able to tell you where to get grass
>> raised animal products and free range eggs too. If you could go to a battery
>> farm and ask them where to get cage free eggs, and see if they would let you
>> look at the birds to see what you think, then go to the cage free place or a
>> place where they raise the parents of either broilers or layers (because the
>> parents are kept cage free for better breeding) and see what you think. If you
>> do that successfully even you might learn to appreciate a distinction you as yet
>> claim to be unable to.

  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:

>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:


>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:


>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>>
>> He is incorrect.

>
>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is /contaminated/
>with it.


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·


  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 7:25*pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, Glen > wrote:
> >On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> They are? *So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
> >> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

>
> >No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
> >on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
> >Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
> >_________________________________________________ _____
> >Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
> >production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
> >vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
> >accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
> >kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
> >employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
> >meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
> >animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
> >vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
> >this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
> >between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). *Unlike the
> >servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
> >farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
> >to his own method. From Wiki;

>
> >[Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
> >employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
> >relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
> >Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:

>
> > * * "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
> >master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."

>
> >The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
> >dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
> >This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
> >given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
> >causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
> >employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
> >relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
> >contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
> >"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
> >employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
> >the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
> >though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
> >under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
> >a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
> >other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
> >is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
> >which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
> >prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
> >control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law

>
> >Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
> >vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
> >production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
> >agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
> >they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
> >consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
> >the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
> >during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
> >collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
> >head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
> >many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
> >_________________________________________________ ____

>
> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it, and there's
> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
> for the deaths that may occur, as we can see by the above post I made
> last year.
>
> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless. They don't
> even believe their own bullshit. You'll never get an honest
> discussion here. You'll never get an honest answer from them.
>
> Take Dutch, for example. When he first came here he claimed to
> be a vegetarian and an advocate for animal rights. Like you he
> used to believe;
>
> "There is a whole different mindset between tolerating
> * collateral death in your life and seeking out direct
> * sacrifice for your subsistence."
> * Dutch * Aug 26 2000 *http://tinyurl.com/7dduf
>
> and
>
> *"The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it
> * enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that
> * their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis
> * attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n
> * diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually
> * unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility.
> * It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the
> * v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
> * Dutch *Dec 13 2000http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf
>
> Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
> gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
> promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
> killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
> if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
> production.
>
> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
> * for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
> * better that they live that life than that they not live at
> * all"
> * Rupert 24 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28
>
> "Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
> * in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
> * I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
> * animal-rights agenda.
> * Rupert 12 May 2007http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp
>
> He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
> about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
> cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
> agenda.
>


Making these statements is not "promoting animal cruelty" to any
greater extent than Derek promotes animal cruelty when he buys plant-
based food products.

Derek is stating that I am psychotic because I experienced a psychotic
illness in 2001. Derek is not ashamed of stigmatising people who have
a history of mental illness.
  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On Mar 6, 4:56*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > *wrote:
> >> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
> >> animals. *What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>
> > He is incorrect.

>
> That's all??? *That's the best you can manage?
>


Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
all that needs to be said.

> Well, "glen", there you go. *Rupert McCallum, the "smartest 'vegan' in
> Usenet" - he has a Ph.D. in mathematics, you know - is telling you that
> your "vegan 'lifestyle'" does indeed cause harm to animals; no doubt
> about it. *You do not live a "cruelty-free 'lifestyle'" by any stretch
> of the imagination.


  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 4:54*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:

>
> >>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
> >>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> snip

>
> >>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> >>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> >>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> >>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> >>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> >>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>
> >>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>
> >>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
> >>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>
> >>> That isn't true.

>
> >> It *is* true.

>
> >>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>
> >> It does.

>
> >>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>
> >> It is a fact. *Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>
> >>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>
> >> As many? *You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>
> >>>>> There's no getting away
> >>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>
> >>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>
> >>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>
> >> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
> >> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? *How could
> >> that be?

>
> >>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>
> >>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
> >>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>
> >>> No. I don't believe you.

>
> >> You just don't *want* to believe it. *Pretty interesting - Woopert has
> >> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
> >> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
> >> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.

>
> > I never made that claim about all vegans.

>
> You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
> are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
> animal deaths. *"glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
> Correct him, please.
>


I did.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> You're only saying that because you
> >>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
> >>> and death on your plate.

>
> >> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. *What I want is
> >> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
> >> free 'lifestyle'." *"veganism is all about sanctimonious
> >> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>
> >>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>
> >>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>
> >>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
> >>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>
> >> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
> >> animals.

>
> >> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
> >> is already dead.

>
> >>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
> >>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>
> >>>> No

>
> >>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
> >>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone.."

>
> >> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. *What I'm doing is
> >> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

>
> >>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
> >>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
> >>> not a fact at all.

>
> >> No, the deaths you cause are a fact. *When I have written of
> >> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
> >> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
> >> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>
> >>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
> >>> drive.

>
> >> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
> >> right on driving. *Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
> >> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
> >> minute?

>
> > One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
> > a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
> > acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
> > to humans in the future.

>
> More likely than not, yes.
>
> > It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
> > and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
> > activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

>
> I never made such a claim.
>


It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
> >>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

>
> >> Driving your car causes misery and death. *You simply close your eyes to
> >> it. *You're a filthy hypocrite.


  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 4:52*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 12:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George > *wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>
> >>>>>>>>> So you appear to believe.

>
> >>>>>>>> Because it is.

>
> >>>>>>> You reckon?

>
> >>>>>> Guaranteed.

>
> >>>>> How do you know?

>
> >>>> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.

>
> >>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> >>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> >>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> >> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> >> nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> >> wild-caught fish causes none.

>
> > No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
> > buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.

>
> Of course you do. *You can't *NOT* know it.


On the basis of what evidence do I know it?
  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:

>
> >> >> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
> >> >> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> >> >> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.

>
> >> >I never said anything about rice.

>
> >> * * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
> >> the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
> >> produce none.

>
> >> >But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> >> >calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

>
> >> * * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
> >> difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
> >> more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!

>
> >> >> *Now
> >> >> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >> >> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >> >> CDs than the beef.

>
> >> >No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >> >evidence one way or the other.

>
> >> * * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
> >> far along with it, doctor?

>
> >If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
> >serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
> >death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
> >should stop making that claim.

>
> * * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
> only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
> sometimes involves less.


I don't have any way of knowing, do I?

You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
with one serving of tofu. If you do not have any idea of any range
into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
comparisons.

> For you to finally confess that you're aware of that
> one fact would be a huge step for you but you still have not taken it, much less
> have you gotten to the position of being able to determine in which cases soy
> produces more and in which cases beef does. Notice that this is yet another
> distinction that you not only are unable to make, but you don't even want to
> accept that the situations which create the distinctions exist, even though it's
> obvious that they do.
>
> * * When you go look into grass raised dairy while at the same time getting to
> see some first hand examples of dairy cows on a farm, while you think about the
> value of life to them also think about the fact that they contribute to less
> deaths than soy, and WAY fewer deaths than rice. That *could* be a big learning
> day for you, and it could lead to many many more if you find a place where you
> can regularly get some grass raised dairy, and enjoy seeing cows enjoying lives
> of positive value (most days, hopefully :-), and maybe you could finally learn
> what that means too.
> . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> * * Go inquire from some cattle farmers in the area. If they don't have any to
> >> sell you, or know anyone who does, they could still help you move in the
> >> direction of finding someone who does know. While you're around the cattle see
> >> if the farmer will let you observe them a little bit, and if so see if you can
> >> appreciate that some or all of them appear to have lives of positive value, or
> >> if you see some you feel do and some you feel don't maybe then you could learn
> >> to appreciate the distinction. That is if you want to see it first hand as you
> >> SHOULD! If there are any grass raised dairys in the area you would almost
> >> certainly do better to begin with that, and it's better than beef anyway
> >> ethically. So a great opportunity for you is to drop by a dairy farm probably in
> >> the evening around 4 or 5 or in the morning when there are people around
> >> milking, and ask them if any dairies in the area are grass raised. Also if there
> >> is some sort of agricultural department in your area or someplace not too far
> >> away you should call them and they might be able to tell you where to get grass
> >> raised animal products and free range eggs too. If you could go to a battery
> >> farm and ask them where to get cage free eggs, and see if they would let you
> >> look at the birds to see what you think, then go to the cage free place or a
> >> place where they raise the parents of either broilers or layers (because the
> >> parents are kept cage free for better breeding) and see what you think.. If you
> >> do that successfully even you might learn to appreciate a distinction you as yet
> >> claim to be unable to.




  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:
>On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George > wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>>>>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>>>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>>>>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>>>>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>>>>> __________________________________________________ ____
>>>>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>>>>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>>>>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>>>>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>>>>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>>>>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>>>>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>>>>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>>>>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>>>>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>>>>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>>>>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>>>>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>>>>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>>>>
>>>>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>>>>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>>>>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>>>>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>>>>
>>>>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>>>>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>>>>
>>>>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>>>>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>>>>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>>>>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>>>>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>>>>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>>>>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>>>>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>>>>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>>>>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>>>>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>>>>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>>>>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>>>>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>>>>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>>>>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>>>>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>>>>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>>>>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>>>>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>>>>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>>>>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>>>>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>>>>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>>>>> __________________________________________________ ___
>>>>
>>>> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
>>>> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,
>>>
>>> Vegetables generally have that history.

>>
>> No, I don't believe that.
>>
>>>> and there's
>>>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>>>> for the deaths that may occur,
>>>
>>> Absolutely wrong, Derek.

>>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
>> rule of English law that dictates,
>>
>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>> under the contract...."

>
>As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
>*legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility.


No, it addresses both. If you can remember, I also brought
another piece from the European Journal of Social Psychology
on how to assign vicarious responsibility.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
causing of the damage]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.

>It also
>looks at an incident in isolation, but the relationship of food
>consumers buying produce whose production they *know* causes animals to
>suffer and die is ongoing.


I know that animals occasionally die in crop production, just
like I know some people occasionally die from police brutality.
I continue to pay the food producer and the police as independent
contractors and, as such, not being in a "superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and able to control that person's
causing of the damage" I am not morally or legally responsible
for what they do.

>>> This idea of shared or vicarious moral
>>> responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
>>> established beyond rational dispute.

>>
>> Yes, and it goes directly against your view.

>
>No, it doesn't.


I'm afraid it does. You cannot foist vicarious moral responsibility
on those who are "not in a superior relationship to the person who
caused the damage and is able to control that person's causing of
the damage."

>>> However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
>>> counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
>>> "lifestyle" is "cruelty free."

>>
>> And it is on his part.

>
>It is not. He is in a voluntary, unnecessary, ongoing relationship with
>killers.


And that relationship is that of an employer and his subcontractor
as described above. There's no cruelty on his part, and so he can
reasonably say that his lifestyle is cruelty-free.

>> The cruelty is not his and doesn't come from him.

>
><yawn> Same as meat eaters.


Meat eaters demand animals be killed in order to eat them.
The farmers they employ are subject to their command as
to the manner in which they shall do their work when
producing meat.

>He doesn't commit the so-called cruelty,


Exactly. Unlike the meat eater, the farmers he employs are
not subject to his command as to the manner in which
they shall do their work when producing his vegetables. His
subcontractor kills animals against his will while producing
his vegetables.

>> Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
>> fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
>> sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
>> criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
>> because you wear a leather watch strap, for example?

>
>What's the relationship between dog fighting and consumption of cattle
>products?


Getting dogs to fight to their death and getting farm animals to
live and die in horrendous circumstances involve abject cruelty
on the part of the person who finds enjoyment from the result of
either practice, it can be argued.
  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:13:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert > wrote:

>On Mar 6, 7:25*pm, Derek > wrote:


>> Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
>> gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
>> promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
>> killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
>> if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
>> production.
>>
>> "I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
>> * for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
>> * better that they live that life than that they not live at
>> * all"
>> * Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28
>>
>> "Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
>> * in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
>> * I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
>> * animal-rights agenda.
>> * Rupert 12 May 2007 http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp
>>
>> He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
>> about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
>> cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
>> agenda.

>
>Making these statements


.... presents a false dilemma, and you know it. New welfarism
demands we either continue using animal welfare practices
or do nothing to alleviate the suffering. It reinforces the idea
that animals can be exploited and drives home the message
that happy meat is preferable to doing nothing at all. It excludes
abolition.
  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > wrote:
>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>>
>>> He is incorrect.

>>
>> That's all??? That's the best you can manage?
>>

>
> Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
> all that needs to be said.


It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> snip

>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>>
>>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>>
>>>>> That isn't true.

>>
>>>> It *is* true.

>>
>>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>>
>>>> It does.

>>
>>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>>
>>>> It is a fact. Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>>
>>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>>
>>>> As many? You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>>
>>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>>
>>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>>
>>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>>
>>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>>>> that be?

>>
>>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>>
>>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>>
>>>>> No. I don't believe you.

>>
>>>> You just don't *want* to believe it. Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.

>>
>>> I never made that claim about all vegans.

>>
>> You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
>> are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
>> animal deaths. "glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
>> Correct him, please.
>>

>
> I did.


Barely.


>>>>> You're only saying that because you
>>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>>>> and death on your plate.

>>
>>>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
>>>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
>>>> free 'lifestyle'." "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>>
>>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>>
>>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>>
>>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>>
>>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>>>> animals.

>>
>>>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
>>>> is already dead.

>>
>>>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>>
>>>>>> No

>>
>>>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>>>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>>
>>>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
>>>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

>>
>>>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>>>> not a fact at all.

>>
>>>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact. When I have written of
>>>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
>>>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
>>>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>>
>>>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>>>> drive.

>>
>>>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
>>>> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
>>>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
>>>> minute?

>>
>>> One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
>>> a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
>>> acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
>>> to humans in the future.

>>
>> More likely than not, yes.
>>
>>> It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
>>> and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
>>> activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

>>
>> I never made such a claim.
>>

>
> It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
> denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.


Nope. Not in the least. "vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
particular kind, even though they are causing it. I never made any
claim not to be causing harm anywhere. I never claimed to be causing no
harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. Recognizing that some harm
to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
desirable, I am always open to suggestions. I recycle as much waste as
I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. I always
turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. I set my
thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. I suggest
these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.

Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
I'm doing what is right. That comparison, more than anything else, is
what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
invidious comparison, and that's immoral.
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:52 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 12:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George > wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you appear to believe.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because it is.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You reckon?

>>
>>>>>>>> Guaranteed.

>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?

>>
>>>>>> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.

>>
>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>>
>>> No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
>>> buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.

>>
>> Of course you do. You can't *NOT* know it.

>
> On the basis of what evidence do I know it?


Sorry, Woopert - we've been over all this before, and now you're just
trying to refight battles you've already lost.


  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
> >>>> animals. *What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>
> >>> He is incorrect.

>
> >> That's all??? *That's the best you can manage?

>
> > Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
> > all that needs to be said.

>
> It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.


Well, you're a bit weird.
  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> snip

>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> >>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> >>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> >>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> >>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> >>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>
> >>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>
> >>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
> >>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>
> >>>>> That isn't true.

>
> >>>> It *is* true.

>
> >>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>
> >>>> It does.

>
> >>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>
> >>>> It is a fact. *Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>
> >>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>
> >>>> As many? *You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>
> >>>>>>> There's no getting away
> >>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>
> >>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>
> >>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>
> >>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
> >>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? *How could
> >>>> that be?

>
> >>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>
> >>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
> >>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>
> >>>>> No. I don't believe you.

>
> >>>> You just don't *want* to believe it. *Pretty interesting - Woopert has
> >>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
> >>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
> >>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.

>
> >>> I never made that claim about all vegans.

>
> >> You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
> >> are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
> >> animal deaths. *"glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
> >> Correct him, please.

>
> > I did.

>
> Barely.
>


No, I did correct him, full stop.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> You're only saying that because you
> >>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
> >>>>> and death on your plate.

>
> >>>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. *What I want is
> >>>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
> >>>> free 'lifestyle'." *"veganism is all about sanctimonious
> >>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>
> >>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>
> >>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>
> >>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
> >>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals..

>
> >>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
> >>>> animals.

>
> >>>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
> >>>> is already dead.

>
> >>>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
> >>>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>
> >>>>>> No

>
> >>>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
> >>>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>
> >>>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. *What I'm doing is
> >>>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

>
> >>>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
> >>>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
> >>>>> not a fact at all.

>
> >>>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact. *When I have written of
> >>>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
> >>>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
> >>>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>
> >>>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
> >>>>> drive.

>
> >>>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
> >>>> right on driving. *Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
> >>>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
> >>>> minute?

>
> >>> One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
> >>> a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
> >>> acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
> >>> to humans in the future.

>
> >> More likely than not, yes.

>
> >>> It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
> >>> and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
> >>> activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim..

>
> >> I never made such a claim.

>
> > It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
> > denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.

>
> Nope. *Not in the least. *"vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
> particular kind, even though they are causing it. *I never made any
> claim not to be causing harm anywhere. *I never claimed to be causing no
> harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. *Recognizing that some harm
> to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
> desirable, I am always open to suggestions. *I recycle as much waste as
> I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. *I always
> turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. *I set my
> thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
> temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. *I suggest
> these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.
>
> Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
> I'm doing what is right. *That comparison, more than anything else, is
> what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
> invidious comparison, and that's immoral.


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can". You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.
  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 7 Mrz., 17:21, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 4:52 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2012 12:46 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George > * *wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So you appear to believe.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because it is.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You reckon?

>
> >>>>>>>> Guaranteed.

>
> >>>>>>> How do you know?

>
> >>>>>> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.

>
> >>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> >>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> >>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> >>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> >>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> >>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>
> >>> No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
> >>> buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.

>
> >> Of course you do. *You can't *NOT* know it.

>
> > On the basis of what evidence do I know it?

>
> Sorry, Woopert - we've been over all this before, and now you're just
> trying to refight battles you've already lost.


No, we haven't been through it before.

It strikes me as entirely implausible that one collateral death takes
place for every serving of tofu I eat. You've never presented the
least evidence for this contention. Your assertion that I "can't not
know it" is obviously utterly absurd.
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>>>>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>>>>>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>>>>>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>>>>>> __________________________________________________ ____
>>>>>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>>>>>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>>>>>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>>>>>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>>>>>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>>>>>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>>>>>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>>>>>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>>>>>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>>>>>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>>>>>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>>>>>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>>>>>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>>>>>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>>>>>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>>>>>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>>>>>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>>>>>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>>>>>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>>>>>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>>>>>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>>>>>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>>>>>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>>>>>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>>>>>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>>>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>>>>>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>>>>>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>>>>>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>>>>>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>>>>>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>>>>>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>>>>>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>>>>>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>>>>>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>>>>>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>>>>>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>>>>>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>>>>>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>>>>>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>>>>>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>>>>>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>>>>>> __________________________________________________ ___
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
>>>>> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,
>>>>
>>>> Vegetables generally have that history.
>>>
>>> No, I don't believe that.


It's true all the same.


>>>>> and there's
>>>>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>>>>> for the deaths that may occur,
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely wrong, Derek.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
>>> rule of English law that dictates,
>>>
>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>> under the contract...."

>>
>> As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
>> *legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility.

>
> No, it addresses both.


It doesn't. Legal liability is narrower than moral liability. It is
based on it, but it doesn't exhaust it.


> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>
> How to Cite
>
> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>
> Abstract
>
> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
> someone can be held vicariously responsible [snip remaining blabber]


So, you believe that consumers are under no obligation not to buy goods
made by slave labor or by workers suffering other severe human rights
abuses in countries like China.

You also just got all omnivores off the hook for their meat consumption,
because they bear *exactly* the same relationship to the meat producers
that vegetable consumers bear to the crop farmers. Thanks!
  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George > wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>>
>>>>> He is incorrect.

>>
>>>> That's all??? That's the best you can manage?

>>
>>> Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
>>> all that needs to be said.

>>
>> It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.

>
> Well, you're a bit weird.


Nope.

You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.


  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 7 Mrz., 17:45, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
> >>>>>> animals. *What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>
> >>>>> He is incorrect.

>
> >>>> That's all??? *That's the best you can manage?

>
> >>> Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
> >>> all that needs to be said.

>
> >> It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.

>
> > Well, you're a bit weird.

>
> Nope.
>
> You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
> that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.


Why should I?

Your engaging with David Harrison is a complete waste of time.
  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George > wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> snip

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>>
>>>>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>>
>>>>>>> That isn't true.

>>
>>>>>> It *is* true.

>>
>>>>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>>
>>>>>> It does.

>>
>>>>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>>
>>>>>> It is a fact. Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>>
>>>>>> As many? You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>>
>>>>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>>
>>>>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>>
>>>>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>>
>>>>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>>>>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>>>>>> that be?

>>
>>>>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>>
>>>>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>>
>>>>>>> No. I don't believe you.

>>
>>>>>> You just don't *want* to believe it. Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>>>>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>>>>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>>>>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.

>>
>>>>> I never made that claim about all vegans.

>>
>>>> You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
>>>> are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
>>>> animal deaths. "glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
>>>> Correct him, please.

>>
>>> I did.

>>
>> Barely.
>>

>
> No, I did correct him, full stop.


Weakly. Basically, you mumbled it.


>>>>>>> You're only saying that because you
>>>>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>>>>>> and death on your plate.

>>
>>>>>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
>>>>>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
>>>>>> free 'lifestyle'." "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>>>>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>>
>>>>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>>
>>>>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>>
>>>>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>>>>>> animals.

>>
>>>>>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
>>>>>> is already dead.

>>
>>>>>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>>
>>>>>>>> No

>>
>>>>>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>>>>>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>>
>>>>>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
>>>>>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

>>
>>>>>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>>>>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>>>>>> not a fact at all.

>>
>>>>>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact. When I have written of
>>>>>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
>>>>>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
>>>>>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>>
>>>>>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>>>>>> drive.

>>
>>>>>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
>>>>>> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
>>>>>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
>>>>>> minute?

>>
>>>>> One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
>>>>> a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
>>>>> acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
>>>>> to humans in the future.

>>
>>>> More likely than not, yes.

>>
>>>>> It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
>>>>> and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
>>>>> activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

>>
>>>> I never made such a claim.

>>
>>> It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
>>> denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.

>>
>> Nope. Not in the least. "vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
>> particular kind, even though they are causing it. I never made any
>> claim not to be causing harm anywhere. I never claimed to be causing no
>> harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. Recognizing that some harm
>> to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
>> desirable, I am always open to suggestions. I recycle as much waste as
>> I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. I always
>> turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. I set my
>> thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
>> temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. I suggest
>> these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.
>>
>> Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
>> I'm doing what is right. That comparison, more than anything else, is
>> what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
>> invidious comparison, and that's immoral.

>
> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


> You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
> to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
> that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


> You haven't got any
> grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
> to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
harm than many "vegan" diets.

"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.

2. "vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
omnivores. Their conclusion about their virtue is false.
  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 7 Mrz., 17:52, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> snip

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> >>>>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> >>>>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> >>>>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> >>>>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> >>>>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>
> >>>>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
> >>>>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>
> >>>>>>> That isn't true.

>
> >>>>>> It *is* true.

>
> >>>>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>
> >>>>>> It does.

>
> >>>>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>
> >>>>>> It is a fact. *Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>
> >>>>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>
> >>>>>> As many? *You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>
> >>>>>>>>> There's no getting away
> >>>>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>
> >>>>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>
> >>>>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>
> >>>>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
> >>>>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? *How could
> >>>>>> that be?

>
> >>>>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>
> >>>>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
> >>>>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>
> >>>>>>> No. I don't believe you.

>
> >>>>>> You just don't *want* to believe it. *Pretty interesting - Woopert has
> >>>>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
> >>>>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
> >>>>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.

>
> >>>>> I never made that claim about all vegans.

>
> >>>> You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
> >>>> are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
> >>>> animal deaths. *"glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial..
> >>>> Correct him, please.

>
> >>> I did.

>
> >> Barely.

>
> > No, I did correct him, full stop.

>
> Weakly. *Basically, you mumbled it.
>


You're a fool.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> You're only saying that because you
> >>>>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
> >>>>>>> and death on your plate.

>
> >>>>>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. *What I want is
> >>>>>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
> >>>>>> free 'lifestyle'." *"veganism is all about sanctimonious
> >>>>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral..

>
> >>>>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>
> >>>>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>
> >>>>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
> >>>>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>
> >>>>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
> >>>>>> animals.

>
> >>>>>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
> >>>>>> is already dead.

>
> >>>>>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
> >>>>>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>
> >>>>>>>> No

>
> >>>>>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
> >>>>>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>
> >>>>>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. *What I'm doing is
> >>>>>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

>
> >>>>>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
> >>>>>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
> >>>>>>> not a fact at all.

>
> >>>>>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact. *When I have written of
> >>>>>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
> >>>>>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
> >>>>>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>
> >>>>>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
> >>>>>>> drive.

>
> >>>>>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
> >>>>>> right on driving. *Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
> >>>>>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
> >>>>>> minute?

>
> >>>>> One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
> >>>>> a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
> >>>>> acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
> >>>>> to humans in the future.

>
> >>>> More likely than not, yes.

>
> >>>>> It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
> >>>>> and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
> >>>>> activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

>
> >>>> I never made such a claim.

>
> >>> It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
> >>> denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.

>
> >> Nope. *Not in the least. *"vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
> >> particular kind, even though they are causing it. *I never made any
> >> claim not to be causing harm anywhere. *I never claimed to be causing no
> >> harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. *Recognizing that some harm
> >> to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
> >> desirable, I am always open to suggestions. *I recycle as much waste as
> >> I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. *I always
> >> turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. *I set my
> >> thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
> >> temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. *I suggest
> >> these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.

>
> >> Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
> >> I'm doing what is right. *That comparison, more than anything else, is
> >> what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
> >> invidious comparison, and that's immoral.

>
> > Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>
> Of course it is.
>


Wrong.

> > You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
> > to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
> > that you are "trying to do the best you can".

>
> Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. *I also
> didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
> their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
> to benefit from their similar consideration.
>


If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?

> > You haven't got any
> > grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
> > to reduce the harm they cause to animals.

>
> 1. *"vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
> * * *established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
> * * *absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
> * * *whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
> * * *universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
> * * *it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
> * * *harm than many "vegan" diets.
>


There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm, partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.

You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.

> * * *"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.
>


You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.

> 2. *"vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
> * * *omnivores. *Their conclusion about their virtue is false.


Wrong.
  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - Derek says omnivores bear no moral responsibility

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:


> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>
> How to Cite
>
> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>
> Abstract
>
> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
> someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
> another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
> vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
> person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
> causing of the damage]
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract
>
> Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
> in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
> able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
> aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
> Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
> always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
> responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
> their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
> the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.


What do you have to say, Woopert? Is Derek right? It is a fact -
beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
deaths of meat animals. The degree of control and the degree of
"[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
are identical.

How about it, Woopert?
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - Derek says omnivores bear no moral responsibility

On 7 Mrz., 17:56, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > *wrote:
> > [Assigning vicarious responsibility

>
> > * *How to Cite

>
> > Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
> > responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
> > doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

>
> > Abstract

>
> > An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
> > someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
> > another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
> > vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
> > person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
> > causing of the damage]
> >http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract

>
> > Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
> > in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
> > able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
> > aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
> > Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
> > always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
> > responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
> > their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
> > the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.

>
> What do you have to say, Woopert? *Is Derek right? *It is a fact -
> beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
> in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
> as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
> Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
> by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
> deaths of meat animals. *The degree of control and the degree of
> "[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
> are identical.
>
> How about it, Woopert?


Yes, I agree with you about that hypothetical statement but I suspect
that Derek will not.


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>>>>>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>>>>>>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>>>>>>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ ____
>>>>>>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>>>>>>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>>>>>>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>>>>>>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>>>>>>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>>>>>>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>>>>>>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>>>>>>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>>>>>>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>>>>>>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>>>>>>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>>>>>>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>>>>>>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>>>>>>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>>>>>>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>>>>>>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>>>>>>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>>>>>>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>>>>>>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>>>>>>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>>>>>>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>>>>>>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>>>>>>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>>>>>>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>>>>>>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>>>>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>>>>>>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>>>>>>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>>>>>>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>>>>>>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>>>>>>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>>>>>>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>>>>>>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>>>>>>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>>>>>>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>>>>>>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>>>>>>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>>>>>>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>>>>>>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>>>>>>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>>>>>>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>>>>>>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ ___
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
>>>>>> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vegetables generally have that history.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't believe that.

>
>It's true all the same.


No, I don't believe it is. If you want to support your claim you're
going to have to provide irrefutable evidence, not guesswork.

>>>>>> and there's
>>>>>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>>>>>> for the deaths that may occur,
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely wrong, Derek.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
>>>> rule of English law that dictates,
>>>>
>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>> under the contract...."
>>>
>>> As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
>>> *legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility.

>>
>> No, it addresses both.

>
>It doesn't.


It does. I can't accept your vague definition in light of all the evidence
I've produced from articles describing a "well-established general rule of
English law" and the European Journal of Social Psychology.

Legal liability is narrower than moral liability. It is
>based on it, but it doesn't exhaust it.
>
>
>> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>>
>> How to Cite
>>
>> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
>> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
>> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
>> someone can be held vicariously responsible [snip remaining blabber]


No, it's not blabber. It describes how and when to properly assign
vicarious responsibility. It's a shame you had to carve it all out.

>So, you believe that consumers are under no obligation not to buy goods
>made by slave labor or by workers suffering other severe human rights
>abuses in countries like China.


No, I do not. I have the latest iPad and many other items bought
from China. I also have diamonds which most likely help fund
atrocities in Africa. Do you own any of these items?

>You also just got all omnivores off the hook for their meat consumption,
>because they bear *exactly* the same relationship to the meat producers
>that vegetable consumers bear to the crop farmers. Thanks!


No, I did not. If you go over what you snipped away you'll find
that I covered all that.
  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 17:45, George > wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>>
>>>>>>> He is incorrect.

>>
>>>>>> That's all??? That's the best you can manage?

>>
>>>>> Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
>>>>> all that needs to be said.

>>
>>>> It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.

>>
>>> Well, you're a bit weird.

>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
>> that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.

>
> Why should I?


Intellectual integrity, maybe?
  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 7 Mrz., 18:10, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Mrz., 17:45, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
> >>>>>>>> animals. *What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

>
> >>>>>>> He is incorrect.

>
> >>>>>> That's all??? *That's the best you can manage?

>
> >>>>> Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
> >>>>> all that needs to be said.

>
> >>>> It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.

>
> >>> Well, you're a bit weird.

>
> >> Nope.

>
> >> You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
> >> that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.

>
> > Why should I?

>
> Intellectual integrity, maybe?


There was absolutely no breach of intellectual integrity. You asked me
to make a comment about what Glen was saying and I did, correctly
reporting what my view was. My intellectual integrity was
unimpeachable.
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 17:52, George > wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> snip

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>>>>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>>>>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>>
>>>>>>>>> That isn't true.

>>
>>>>>>>> It *is* true.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>>
>>>>>>>> It does.

>>
>>>>>>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>>
>>>>>>>> It is a fact. Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>>
>>>>>>>> As many? You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>>
>>>>>>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>>>>>>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>>>>>>>> that be?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>>>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>>
>>>>>>>>> No. I don't believe you.

>>
>>>>>>>> You just don't *want* to believe it. Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>>>>>>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>>>>>>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>>>>>>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.

>>
>>>>>>> I never made that claim about all vegans.

>>
>>>>>> You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
>>>>>> are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
>>>>>> animal deaths. "glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
>>>>>> Correct him, please.

>>
>>>>> I did.

>>
>>>> Barely.

>>
>>> No, I did correct him, full stop.

>>
>> Weakly. Basically, you mumbled it.
>>

>
> You're a fool.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> You're only saying that because you
>>>>>>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>>>>>>>> and death on your plate.

>>
>>>>>>>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
>>>>>>>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
>>>>>>>> free 'lifestyle'." "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>>>>>>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>>>>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>>
>>>>>>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>>>>>>>> animals.

>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
>>>>>>>> is already dead.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>>>>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> No

>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>>>>>>>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
>>>>>>>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

>>
>>>>>>>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>>>>>>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>>>>>>>> not a fact at all.

>>
>>>>>>>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact. When I have written of
>>>>>>>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
>>>>>>>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
>>>>>>>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>>
>>>>>>>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> drive.

>>
>>>>>>>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
>>>>>>>> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
>>>>>>>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
>>>>>>>> minute?

>>
>>>>>>> One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
>>>>>>> a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
>>>>>>> acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
>>>>>>> to humans in the future.

>>
>>>>>> More likely than not, yes.

>>
>>>>>>> It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
>>>>>>> and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
>>>>>>> activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

>>
>>>>>> I never made such a claim.

>>
>>>>> It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
>>>>> denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.

>>
>>>> Nope. Not in the least. "vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
>>>> particular kind, even though they are causing it. I never made any
>>>> claim not to be causing harm anywhere. I never claimed to be causing no
>>>> harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. Recognizing that some harm
>>>> to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
>>>> desirable, I am always open to suggestions. I recycle as much waste as
>>>> I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. I always
>>>> turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. I set my
>>>> thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
>>>> temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. I suggest
>>>> these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.

>>
>>>> Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
>>>> I'm doing what is right. That comparison, more than anything else, is
>>>> what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
>>>> invidious comparison, and that's immoral.

>>
>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>>
>> Of course it is.
>>

>
> Wrong.


No, it's right. It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.


>>> You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
>>> to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
>>> that you are "trying to do the best you can".

>>
>> Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
>> didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
>> their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
>> to benefit from their similar consideration.
>>

>
> If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
> human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
> bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? I
didn't. I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.


>
>>> You haven't got any
>>> grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
>>> to reduce the harm they cause to animals.

>>
>> 1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
>> established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
>> absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
>> whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
>> universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
>> it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
>> harm than many "vegan" diets.
>>

>
> There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
> significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
> vegetable crops are least-harm,


Bullshit.


> partly because there is no reliable
> information available about that anyway, the research has not been
> done.


There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?

Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
which vegetables are least-harm?

The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
This has been established thoroughly: they do NOT care. The easy, lazy
and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
sufficient is just too convenient.



> You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
> meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.


That's a lie. What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
salvage their bankrupt belief system.


>> "vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.
>>

>
> You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.


I have proved it beyond all doubt.

>
>> 2. "vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
>> omnivores. Their conclusion about their virtue is false.

>
> Wrong.


No, right. "glen" is a perfect example.
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - Derek says omnivores bear no moral responsibilityfor the deaths of meat animals

On 3/7/2012 8:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 17:56, George > wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:
>>> [Assigning vicarious responsibility

>>
>>> How to Cite

>>
>>> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
>>> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
>>> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

>>
>>> Abstract

>>
>>> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
>>> someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
>>> another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
>>> vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
>>> person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
>>> causing of the damage]
>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract

>>
>>> Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
>>> in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
>>> able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
>>> aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
>>> Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
>>> always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
>>> responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
>>> their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
>>> the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.

>>
>> What do you have to say, Woopert? Is Derek right? It is a fact -
>> beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
>> in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
>> as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
>> Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
>> by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
>> deaths of meat animals. The degree of control and the degree of
>> "[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
>> are identical.
>>
>> How about it, Woopert?

>
> Yes, I agree with you about that hypothetical statement but I suspect
> that Derek will not.


Well, good for you, then.


  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 9:01 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George > wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>>>>>>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>>>>>>>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>>>>>>>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ ____
>>>>>>>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>>>>>>>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>>>>>>>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>>>>>>>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>>>>>>>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>>>>>>>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>>>>>>>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>>>>>>>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>>>>>>>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>>>>>>>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>>>>>>>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>>>>>>>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>>>>>>>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>>>>>>>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>>>>>>>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>>>>>>>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>>>>>>>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>>>>>>>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>>>>>>>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>>>>>>>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>>>>>>>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>>>>>>>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>>>>>>>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>>>>>>>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>>>>>>>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>>>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>>>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>>>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>>>>>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>>>>>>>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>>>>>>>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>>>>>>>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>>>>>>>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>>>>>>>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>>>>>>>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>>>>>>>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>>>>>>>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>>>>>>>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>>>>>>>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>>>>>>>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>>>>>>>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>>>>>>>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>>>>>>>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>>>>>>>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>>>>>>>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ ___
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
>>>>>>> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vegetables generally have that history.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I don't believe that.

>>
>> It's true all the same.

>
> No, I don't believe it is. If you want to support your claim you're
> going to have to provide irrefutable evidence, not guesswork.
>
>>>>>>> and there's
>>>>>>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>>>>>>> for the deaths that may occur,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely wrong, Derek.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
>>>>> rule of English law that dictates,
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>>> under the contract...."
>>>>
>>>> As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
>>>> *legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility.
>>>
>>> No, it addresses both.

>>
>> It doesn't.

>
> It does.


It doesn't.


>> Legal liability is narrower than moral liability. It is
>> based on it, but it doesn't exhaust it.
>>
>>
>>> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>>>
>>> How to Cite
>>>
>>> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
>>> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
>>> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>>
>>> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
>>> someone can be held vicariously responsible [snip remaining blabber]

>
> No, it's not blabber.


It's blabber.


>> So, you believe that consumers are under no obligation not to buy goods
>> made by slave labor or by workers suffering other severe human rights
>> abuses in countries like China.

>
> No, I do not. I have the latest iPad and many other items bought
> from China. I also have diamonds which most likely help fund
> atrocities in Africa. Do you own any of these items?


No.


>> You also just got all omnivores off the hook for their meat consumption,
>> because they bear *exactly* the same relationship to the meat producers
>> that vegetable consumers bear to the crop farmers. Thanks!

>
> No, I did not. If you go over what you snipped away you'll find
> that I covered all that.


No, you didn't. It is not in dispute that omnivores' relationship to
meat producers is identical in terms of degree of control and degree of
"superiority", whatever that's supposed to mean, as "vegans'"
relationship with crop producers.
  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George Plimpton > wrote:
>
> >>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>
> >> Of course it is.

>
> > Wrong.

>
> No, it's right. *It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.
>


You're a fool.

> >>> You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
> >>> to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
> >>> that you are "trying to do the best you can".

>
> >> Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. *I also
> >> didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
> >> their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
> >> to benefit from their similar consideration.

>
> > If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
> > human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
> > bears' rights?

>
> When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? *I
> didn't. *I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.
>


By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
human rights?

>
>
> >>> You haven't got any
> >>> grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
> >>> to reduce the harm they cause to animals.

>
> >> 1. *"vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
> >> * * * established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
> >> * * * absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
> >> * * * whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
> >> * * * universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
> >> * * * it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
> >> * * * harm than many "vegan" diets.

>
> > There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
> > significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
> > vegetable crops are least-harm,

>
> Bullshit.
>
> > partly because there is no reliable
> > information available about that anyway, the research has not been
> > done.

>
> There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
> can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
> PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?
>
> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? *They went to a lot of effort to try to
> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
> which vegetables are least-harm?
>


I don't know; you'll have to ask them.

> The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
> This has been established thoroughly: *they do NOT care. *The easy, lazy
> and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
> sufficient is just too convenient.
>


You're a fool.

> > You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
> > meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.

>
> That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?

> What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
> salvage their bankrupt belief system.
>
> >> * * * "vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.

>
> > You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.

>
> I have proved it beyond all doubt.
>


Wrong.

>
>
> >> 2. *"vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
> >> * * * omnivores. *Their conclusion about their virtue is false..

>
> > Wrong.

>
> No, right. *"glen" is a perfect example.


  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>>
>>>> Of course it is.

>>
>>> Wrong.

>>
>> No, it's right. It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.
>>

>
> You're a fool.


Gotcha!


>>>>> You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
>>>>> to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
>>>>> that you are "trying to do the best you can".

>>
>>>> Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
>>>> didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
>>>> their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
>>>> to benefit from their similar consideration.

>>
>>> If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
>>> human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
>>> bears' rights?

>>
>> When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? I
>> didn't. I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.
>>

>
> By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
> kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
> human rights?


Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
rights.


>>>>> You haven't got any
>>>>> grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
>>>>> to reduce the harm they cause to animals.

>>
>>>> 1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
>>>> established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
>>>> absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
>>>> whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
>>>> universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
>>>> it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
>>>> harm than many "vegan" diets.

>>
>>> There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
>>> significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
>>> vegetable crops are least-harm,

>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> partly because there is no reliable
>>> information available about that anyway, the research has not been
>>> done.

>>
>> There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
>> can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
>> PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?
>>
>> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
>> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
>> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
>> which vegetables are least-harm?
>>

>
> I don't know; you'll have to ask them.


You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. "vegans" ****
away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
internally coherent? The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
their claims for it: not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.

The entire thing is shit.


>> The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
>> This has been established thoroughly: they do NOT care. The easy, lazy
>> and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
>> sufficient is just too convenient.
>>

>
> You're a fool.


Gotcha!


>
>>> You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
>>> meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.

>>
>> That's a lie.

>
> So where have you given the suggestion, then?


See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.


>
>> What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
>> salvage their bankrupt belief system.
>>
>>>> "vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.

>>
>>> You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.

>>
>> I have proved it beyond all doubt.
>>

>
> Wrong.


No, I'm right.


>
>>
>>
>>>> 2. "vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
>>>> omnivores. Their conclusion about their virtue is false.

>>
>>> Wrong.

>>
>> No, right. "glen" is a perfect example.


Gotcha again!
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George > *wrote:

>
> >>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>
> >>>> Of course it is.

>
> >>> Wrong.

>
> >> No, it's right. *It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.

>
> > You're a fool.

>
> Gotcha!
>


I see.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
> >>>>> to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
> >>>>> that you are "trying to do the best you can".

>
> >>>> Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. *I also
> >>>> didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
> >>>> their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
> >>>> to benefit from their similar consideration.

>
> >>> If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
> >>> human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
> >>> bears' rights?

>
> >> When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? *I
> >> didn't. *I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.

>
> > By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
> > kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
> > human rights?

>
> Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
> rights.
>


Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
Pacific Islands.

http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm

In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
have occurred? Why or why not?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> You haven't got any
> >>>>> grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
> >>>>> to reduce the harm they cause to animals.

>
> >>>> 1. *"vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
> >>>> * * * *established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
> >>>> * * * *absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
> >>>> * * * *whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
> >>>> * * * *universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
> >>>> * * * *it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
> >>>> * * * *harm than many "vegan" diets.

>
> >>> There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
> >>> significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
> >>> vegetable crops are least-harm,

>
> >> Bullshit.

>
> >>> partly because there is no reliable
> >>> information available about that anyway, the research has not been
> >>> done.

>
> >> There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
> >> can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
> >> PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?

>
> >> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
> >> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? *They went to a lot of effort to try to
> >> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
> >> which vegetables are least-harm?

>
> > I don't know; you'll have to ask them.

>
> You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
> there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. *"vegans" ****
> away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
> can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
> internally coherent? *The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
> indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
> They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
> their claims for it: *not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
> second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.
>
> The entire thing is shit.
>


Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "least harm"?

> >> The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
> >> This has been established thoroughly: *they do NOT care. *The easy, lazy
> >> and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
> >> sufficient is just too convenient.

>
> > You're a fool.

>
> Gotcha!
>
>
>
> >>> You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
> >>> meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.

>
> >> That's a lie.

>
> > So where have you given the suggestion, then?

>
> See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
> gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.
>


What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
vegan diets?

>
>
> >> What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
> >> salvage their bankrupt belief system.

>
> >>>> * * * *"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.

>
> >>> You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.

>
> >> I have proved it beyond all doubt.

>
> > Wrong.

>
> No, I'm right.
>
>
>
> >>>> 2. *"vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
> >>>> * * * *omnivores. *Their conclusion about their virtue is false.

>
> >>> Wrong.

>
> >> No, right. *"glen" is a perfect example.

>
> Gotcha again!


  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George > wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George > wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>>
>>>>>> Of course it is.

>>
>>>>> Wrong.

>>
>>>> No, it's right. It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.

>>
>>> You're a fool.

>>
>> Gotcha!
>>

>
> I see.


Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.


>>>>>>> You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
>>>>>>> to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
>>>>>>> that you are "trying to do the best you can".

>>
>>>>>> Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
>>>>>> didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
>>>>>> their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
>>>>>> to benefit from their similar consideration.

>>
>>>>> If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
>>>>> human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
>>>>> bears' rights?

>>
>>>> When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? I
>>>> didn't. I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.

>>
>>> By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
>>> kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
>>> human rights?

>>
>> Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
>> rights.
>>

>
> Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
> Pacific Islands.
>
> http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm
>
> In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
> have occurred? Why or why not?


No, because they can be relocated.


>>>>>>> You haven't got any
>>>>>>> grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
>>>>>>> to reduce the harm they cause to animals.

>>
>>>>>> 1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
>>>>>> established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
>>>>>> absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
>>>>>> whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
>>>>>> universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
>>>>>> it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
>>>>>> harm than many "vegan" diets.

>>
>>>>> There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
>>>>> significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
>>>>> vegetable crops are least-harm,

>>
>>>> Bullshit.

>>
>>>>> partly because there is no reliable
>>>>> information available about that anyway, the research has not been
>>>>> done.

>>
>>>> There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
>>>> can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
>>>> PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?

>>
>>>> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
>>>> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
>>>> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
>>>> which vegetables are least-harm?

>>
>>> I don't know; you'll have to ask them.

>>
>> You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
>> there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. "vegans" ****
>> away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
>> can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
>> internally coherent? The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
>> indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
>> They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
>> their claims for it: not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
>> second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.
>>
>> The entire thing is shit.
>>

>
> Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "least harm"?


You've never made the case that it is. As noted, there is an infinite
number of "vegan" diets, and they can't *all* be least harm.


>>>> The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
>>>> This has been established thoroughly: they do NOT care. The easy, lazy
>>>> and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
>>>> sufficient is just too convenient.

>>
>>> You're a fool.

>>
>> Gotcha!
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
>>>>> meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.

>>
>>>> That's a lie.

>>
>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?

>>
>> See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
>> gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.
>>

>
> What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
> vegan diets?


The grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish and gathered wild nuts and fruits
cause zero CDs.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The 'vegan' shuffle" George Plimpton Vegan 0 08-05-2013 06:58 AM
The dreaded supermarket shuffle Nancy Young General Cooking 25 23-08-2007 02:44 AM
Pan shuffle/toss technique!?! Andy General Cooking 9 31-10-2006 02:52 AM
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins Steve Vegan 2 27-05-2004 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"